THE PROP DEN is primarily a Darth Vader Prop Discussion Board, but we also deal with other Star Wars Props as well as Prop Replicas from other movies. If you do not yet have an account, set one up, sign in and jump into the Vader Prop Discussions!

The thing with average symmetry is that it is neither left side, nor right side, it is both sides averaged. If one side is more squared and the other more rounded, the averaged symmetrical version will be the median of the two, so will neither be one nor the other. That's the big difference between mirrored symmetry and frankensteined symmetry, where it will actually be one over the other and not both of them, and then averaged symmetry. It will attack everything you know about the asymmetry and idiosyncrasies of the original helmets, but won't favor one detail over another. That's the beauty of averaged symmetry, which the filmmakers and propmakers doesn't seem to have grasped yet, is the fact that it retains THE FEEL of the original, which other symmetry options loses.

Mirrored symmetry always looks weird. It always has and always will. Frankensteined symmetry that takes bits and pieces of the best details on both sides, but ignoring the rest, is a bit more pleasing than mirrored symmetry, but it is still lacking because it still fails to incorporate all details, shapes and idiosyncrasies into the design. That's where averaged symmetry marvels. It will give you perfection that utilizes everything and gives you something that actually still looks like the original, but in a symmetric form.

I'm so glad I was able to convince Dan that this was the kind of symmetry his project deserved and he was interested in making this happen, as it actually meant a fulfillment of his wishes by doing it that way. Even though I have been distancing myself from the hobby for some time now, I'm glad I didn't keep silent. The end result shows a perfectly averaged symmetrical version of the OT trooper helmet, which will be very hard to top.

Well explained. Average symmetry does retain the FEEL of the originals, as demonstrated here and in the NHM ESB promo Vader.

Here's an example of a Frankensteined modification of the OT, the ANOVOS TK. While it's not that bad really, there are shape differences that cause it to lose some of the OT feel. For example you can see the abundance of curves on the helmet's right side where on the OT they would be lines.

The interplay and confluence of curves and lines is an artistic aesthetic. Preferring the OT versions and those which retain the essence of them is not just stubbornness. It is also because they're inherently more artistic in design.

The interplay and confluence of curves and lines is an artistic aesthetic. Preferring the OT versions and those which retain the essence of them is not just stubbornness. It is also because they're inherently more artistic in design.

Oh yes. Completely agree. Like a face, the asymmetry is what makes it interesting, in parts, whereas the averaged symmetrical version can lack character and spirit. It sorta removes the personality a bit and makes it be utilitarian instead.

as far as the far right cheek looking rounded. can you point that out for me? i just want to make sure i know what area exactly you talking about. because when creating the sculpt, we found out that certain areas on the far back sides of the cheek just under the teardrop was in fact rounded. but the far back was flat. so we matched what we saw in the images we created. but maybe im not understanding what area you specifically talking about? lol

Sure. I was referring to the curvature of cheek along the front of the tear (shown in blue below). Comparing to this screen used helmet as a representative example, what you have looks to be correct as the average curvature for left and right sides.

It's just one of those features that I know is "supposed to be" asymmetric. The right side bulges out slightly more than the left side. When shown symmetrical, though my first impression is it looks great, the rivet counter subconscious in me demands that I reconsider!

One thing I look at are the implicit lines along these curvatures (such as the green lines below). Where they are visible in the OT I would expect them to be visible in the TS also. Not exactly the same slope or location, but visible. This is something that I think is lacking in the R1.

aaaah, ok gotcha, yeah, i made sure that the artist mimicked every aspect of what was seen in the average symmetry images we created. i emphasized throughout the project that it was CRUCIAL that every single aspect and minor detail was followed (as close as physically possible). so that we would capture the look and more importantly the feel of the OT lids. and i cant express how pleased i am to knwo that with compliments and comments from the purists of the OT helemts that we accomplished just that.

The thing with average symmetry is that it is neither left side, nor right side, it is both sides averaged. If one side is more squared and the other more rounded, the averaged symmetrical version will be the median of the two, so will neither be one nor the other. That's the big difference between mirrored symmetry and frankensteined symmetry, where it will actually be one over the other and not both of them, and then averaged symmetry. It will attack everything you know about the asymmetry and idiosyncrasies of the original helmets, but won't favor one detail over another. That's the beauty of averaged symmetry, which the filmmakers and propmakers doesn't seem to have grasped yet, is the fact that it retains THE FEEL of the original, which other symmetry options loses.

Mirrored symmetry always looks weird. It always has and always will. Frankensteined symmetry that takes bits and pieces of the best details on both sides, but ignoring the rest, is a bit more pleasing than mirrored symmetry, but it is still lacking because it still fails to incorporate all details, shapes and idiosyncrasies into the design. That's where averaged symmetry marvels. It will give you perfection that utilizes everything and gives you something that actually still looks like the original, but in a symmetric form.

I'm so glad I was able to convince Dan that this was the kind of symmetry his project deserved and he was interested in making this happen, as it actually meant a fulfillment of his wishes by doing it that way. Even though I have been distancing myself from the hobby for some time now, I'm glad I didn't keep silent. The end result shows a perfectly averaged symmetrical version of the OT trooper helmet, which will be very hard to top.

yes, i have to admit, i was going for the mirrored style at first. the helmet's right side. the one with the sty. thought it would be a better version of what is seen on screen and of what others have done with the helmet's left side in the past. but when you suggested and explained there was a way to combine both sides, i knew that would be the best route to take to make a true symmetrical helmet that would have the look and more importantly, feel of the OT lids. plus, this is something that has not ever been done before. its a first of its kind so to speak. so i have to say im very glad i took your advice.. because THIS is exactly what i wanted to accomplish.

The interplay and confluence of curves and lines is an artistic aesthetic. Preferring the OT versions and those which retain the essence of them is not just stubbornness. It is also because they're inherently more artistic in design.

Oh yes. Completely agree. Like a face, the asymmetry is what makes it interesting, in parts, whereas the averaged symmetrical version can lack character and spirit. It sorta removes the personality a bit and makes it be utilitarian instead.

well not necessarily. after all. the TS is proof that character can be obtained symmetrically. all the more reason to do averaged symmetry. you capture all of what is seen in asymmetry and that combines both sides. when it comes to an industrial manufactured equipment such as a helmet that is. for me atleast, asymmetry does not make any sense. .i would think that these items would be made symmetrical. unless of course the asymmetry had a meaningful purpose. but yes on an artistic standpoint asymmetry is what gives the sculpt its identity. especially when it comes to animate or living objects.

I would add that if the goal is to create a symmetric version, this is definitely the way it should be done. It retains the essential curves lines and angles the artist intended I think whereas a mirrored version may not, particularly at the vertical centerline where they intersect. And any attempts to smooth any discontinuities there will probably not look right.

I think much of the appeal of both the Vader and Stormtrooper helmets comes from the geometry. The angles between features and length ratios between features correspond with centuries-old design patterns. And not to clutter this thread further, I might start another thread regarding this. A hint: it involves a compass and a square.

I would add that if the goal is to create a symmetric version, this is definitely the way it should be done. It retains the essential curves lines and angles the artist intended I think whereas a mirrored version may not, particularly at the vertical centerline where they intersect. And any attempts to smooth any discontinuities there will probably not look right.

I think much of the appeal of both the Vader and Stormtrooper helmets comes from the geometry. The angles between features and length ratios between features correspond with centuries-old design patterns. And not to clutter this thread further, I might start another thread regarding this. A hint: it involves a compass and a square.

absolutely on all counts.

i am wondering what approach they are taking with the Vader Helmet for R1? im guessing that they will be doing the same thing they did with the ST helmets. i just hope they stay true to the ANH version and give it all the aspects and details that the ANH version had even if they do do a symmetrical version. it will be interesting to see how they have done it. im actually really anxious to see it, but i hope they dont reveal it until the film is released.

Glancing at this helmet again, just one miniscule detail you might look at is the density of the mesh for the mic tips.

I count about 11 mesh openings along the extent of the diameter. For the screen-used helmets images I reviewed I counted between 8 and 10.

I investigated this a while back because some of the kits I have didn't include the mesh or included aluminum mesh. Screen used ones used stainless steel woven mesh. I figured a mesh density of about 14 openings per inch was what I was looking for (mesh #14). Turned out that was a special order with some lead time, but I bought a 2 square foot sheet of it.

Anyway this is such a small detail it's almost negligible, but if you do decide to investigate and then to change it, I suppose it would be an easy change.

Good post. Also, if printed in smaller scales it is often better to go larger on some details than completely accurate, which would go well with things like the mesh on mic tips or the tusks on a Vader helmet, as the stem of the tusk if rendered accurately may be too thin and snap when molding and casting. There are many things to consider when doing digital models and 3D printing.

Glancing at this helmet again, just one miniscule detail you might look at is the density of the mesh for the mic tips.

I count about 11 mesh openings along the extent of the diameter. For the screen-used helmets images I reviewed I counted between 8 and 10.

I investigated this a while back because some of the kits I have didn't include the mesh or included aluminum mesh. Screen used ones used stainless steel woven mesh. I figured a mesh density of about 14 openings per inch was what I was looking for (mesh #14). Turned out that was a special order with some lead time, but I bought a 2 square foot sheet of it.

Anyway this is such a small detail it's almost negligible, but if you do decide to investigate and then to change it, I suppose it would be an easy change.

My rivet counter's membership ID number is 3263827. ;)

always learn something new in this hobby and from this community. i never knew lol thanks for bringing that to my attention.

BUT, i will be digitally printing these helmets in a 1/4 scale first. i created this for a stylized film accurate symmetrical (i know that sound wrong..lol) helmet for the Sideshow Premium Format Figure.

so although i had no clue there was a specific amount of openings for the mesh on the mic tips. looks like i was pretty close..lol but due to the scale that the helmet will be in, i dont think that would be all that big of a deal to worry about. only because it is a possibility that one or two openings could in fact close up due to the printing , post print prep and painting process.

with that being said, when it comes time to make a life size wearable version of the TS. all of the finer micro detail can be accomplished. so all of the components such as the screen mesh you're referring to, the mic tips, brow trim and lense material (although i will more than likely be do doing a nice thick plastic lense material) can be and will be add ons. just like how the wearable ST helmets that are available now. so the finer details and accuracy of the film used helmets can be accomplished if someone would so choose to do so.

Good post. Also, if printed in smaller scales it is often better to go larger on some details than completely accurate, which would go well with things like the mesh on mic tips or the tusks on a Vader helmet, as the stem of the tusk if rendered accurately may be too thin and snap when molding and casting. There are many things to consider when doing digital models and 3D printing.

yes, thats true to a degree. all depends on what it is your printing and the resolution you're printing at. there are the high end machines that can print at 5 microns. so all of the finer details such as the screen mesh, or even pores on human skin can be accomplished and achieved and brought out on the print. . and what actually need to be done is for those details to be exaggerated in the digital sculpt so that way when it is printed you dont loose any detail. because you will loose detail during the printing, post printing prep and painting processes

as far as the tusks for Vader, yes it would be ok to just go slightly larger so things are not easily broken at such a smaller scale. but details such as those should be molded and cast separately so that bubbles do not develop during the casting process., especially with something that small. and the undercut that the front of the tusk presents. plus (depending on what kind of resin or material you casting with) you do not want them to get broken off during the removal from the mold if casting them connected to the helmet.

Not to get too derailed with sixth scale Vader talk, then the tusks are so small it would be nearly impossible to mold and cast them separately. They are really, really tiny. The main issue is the slim stem. Without breaking the illusion you could easily widen the stem, so it's a little thicker, but still slimmer than the tip and the base, so it still gives the illusion that it is accurately shaped. At that small scale you wouldn't notice it anyway that it's a little fatter at the stem than it should be while keeping both tip and base completely accurate. It will give you that extra bit of support that works really well when molding and casting.

yeah, for the 1/6thy scale. it would be a pain in the ass to mold and cat those tiny 1/6th scale tusks..lol i was mainly referring to 1/4 and larger.it also depends on how you key the helmet and make your mold and where you put the pour spout. always wnat to make them ina way where the undercuts are at a minimal or eliminated altogether.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum